Yet another victim of the 491 mess

Good Tuesday, friends. Time to talk about the elephant in the room.

I’m not yet ready to concede the death of One for All, but I certainly acknowledge its challenges in the wake of the 491 mess.

So, let’s break it down. Is One for All still a potential for the 2026 ballot? And would it have a chance of passing? I have three answers: Yes. No. Maybe.

---

— YES! Prior to the 491 mess, I was pondering a blog about the political psychology of a referendum. Yes, the current board places it on the ballot, but future boards will be spending the bulk of the funds.

My thinking was One for All is meant for US, not the politicians. Therefore, if we had a sales-tax spending plan geared toward a community goal, not a political one, it wouldn’t matter who the five commissioners were at the time of the vote.

Think about that some. What does the government want? Money for roads, right? Specifically, the widening of C.R. 491, though I can’t see citizens supporting that after what we’ve learned in recent weeks.

(We know the road needs widening, and that it'll cost tens of millions of dollars. Why we couldn’t do this the proper way, I’ll never know.)

So, let’s not look at One for All as the politicians do. Ideas could include a youth sports complex, Citrus Hope homeless shelter, or the animal shelter. You may like none of these or all of these. All I’m suggesting is that citizens should have a say before we just kick this idea to the curb.

Maybe I’m wishful thinking at this point, but I’d hate to see this potential gift fall by the wayside.

— NO! No way, no. No as big as no can get. Could we even find 20% of the community right now that has faith and trust in the County Commission? Frankly, I doubt it. I’m not saying the entire county has gone anti-commission. I’m saying that of the folks who pay attention — think primary voters — they’re not happy.

I mean, they’re REALLY unhappy. Disgusted. I spoke with a businessman on Monday who believes this sort of thing goes on all the time. While I don’t share that pessimism, I certainly see where he’s coming from. The County Commission majority has given citizens zero reason to believe they’ll see any kind of justice from this.

The problem is, it’ll linger. Like an aroma that won’t come out in the wash.

— MAYBE! Ok, here we go. The ONLY chance of this succeeding with the public is a total chowing down of humble pie by the people who caused this mess.

The County Commission, Chronicle, and Chamber leadership all deserve the arrows. My friend Josh Wooten is known for no filter, but even he is WAAAY out there. I mean…he’s accusing an unsuccessful 2024 county commission candidate of having enough influence in Tallahassee to steamroll Citrus County’s best interests. 

Why all this noise to quash the truth?

I wrote last week about Editor Jim’s column in the Chronicle, which contained a huge mistruth: “At the heart of the drama is a $3 million request to the state for a traffic study along County Road 491. The board voted to pursue state funding back in December. Everyone — including (Janet) Barek and (Diana) Finegan — supported it.”

That simply didn’t happen. The board never voted in December, or any other month, to pursue state funding for this section of 491. (The state years ago partially funded the part of C.R. 491 now being widened.)

Why would the Chronicle tell a whopper like that and not correct it when presented with the public record? (Mike note: I sent an email to Publisher Trina Murphy on Monday, calling out Editor Jim's remarks. I told her I was writing a blog about it and sure enough, Editor Jim wrote another column. He sorta cleared it up.)

Why is the chamber president going out of his way to discredit anyone who questions the propriety of the 491 debacle?

Will Commissioners Rebecca Bays, Holly Davis, and Jeff Kinnard acknowledge the error in a meaningful way? Or will they continue to tell us how wonderful a job County Administrator Steve Howard is doing, ignoring his role?

We need all three of those components — County, Chronicle, and Chamber — in step with the community, or One for All never had a chance. Citizens want faith in the process so that their voices are heard and counted. If they believe something is underfoot, they won’t participate. I don’t blame ‘em.

Now, I fully expect the three entities I named to turn it back on me. We’d all still be living in la-la land had I not stumbled upon the 491 appropriation and developer/lobbyist role. The fact that it’s caused such an uproar suggests a fundamental flaw in how things are done around here.

One for All? Without life support, it’s fading for 2026. And that’s a damn shame.

Have a terrific Tuesday, friends.

Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Support the blog by subscribing to JWC Inner Circle for 99 cents/month.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.